There were too many variables in what you did to be able to interweave them in search of an answer. However, you should not be deterred if you would like to experiment with lower hydration values. My home mixer does not do a good job with low hydration values but if your home mixer is up to the task you might select a dough formulation to try with lower hydration values. That would entail selecting a fermentation period, the hydration value that you would like to test, and a yeast quantity that will produce the desired dough condition at the end of the selected fermentation period. You might even consider using your Hobart mixer at work to make several test dough balls to see if you can get them to open up with the desired balance of elasticity and extensibility. It may well be that our home mixers cannot replicate what the De Lorenzo's are doing with their commercial mixers.

There were too many variables in what you did to be able to interweave them in search of an answer. However, you should not be deterred if you would like to experiment with lower hydration values. My home mixer does not do a good job with low hydration values but if your home mixer is up to the task you might select a dough formulation to try with lower hydration values. That would entail selecting a fermentation period, the hydration value that you would like to test, and a yeast quantity that will produce the desired dough condition at the end of the selected fermentation period. You might even consider using your Hobart mixer at work to make several test dough balls to see if you can get them to open up with the desired balance of elasticity and extensibility. It may well be that our home mixers cannot replicate what the De Lorenzo's are doing with their commercial mixers.

Peter

Peter,

I know there were too many variables to figure out why the De Lorenzo/Sloan frozen dough ball worked out yesterday. I really don't want to put my home mixer right through more tests right now even though I know my home mixer can mix a lower hydration dough. I don't think I am willing to use my Hobart at market either. I don't know how much dough I would need to mix in that mixer, but know from the past that the Hobart needs at least 5 NY style dough balls to be able to mix right. I think that would translate into too many test lower hydration dough balls and I would not know what to do with all of them. I know our home mixers might not be able to replicate what De Lorenzo's are doing with their commercial mixers.

I think I will try your #10 De Lorenzo clone dough formulation next in the Blackstone unit to see if the BS can have about the same bake.

I know there were too many variables to figure out why the De Lorenzo/Sloan frozen dough ball worked out yesterday. I really don't want to put my home mixer right through more tests right now even though I know my home mixer can mix a lower hydration dough. I don't think I am willing to use my Hobart at market either. I don't know how much dough I would need to mix in that mixer, but know from the past that the Hobart needs at least 5 NY style dough balls to be able to mix right. I think that would translate into too many test lower hydration dough balls and I would not know what to do with all of them. I know our home mixers might not be able to replicate what De Lorenzo's are doing with their commercial mixers.

Norma,

Your post as quoted above sent me back to the drawing board. But, this time, it was in respect of the Sloan dough. And, in that vein, I made two Sloan clone test dough balls. The results are in for the first Sloan clone test dough, which I will discuss below, and the results for the second Sloan clone test dough are pending, with completion of that test dough expected tomorrow. However, the results go beyond just a Sloan dough. The implications go beyond that specific dough, as will become evident below.

To refresh your memory, you will recall that you conducted several hydration bake tests with the large Sloan dough ball that you purchased from De Lorenzo/Sloan when you and Trenton Bill visited that location and had one of their pizzas. You might also recall that I did a similar hydration bake test with a Sloan clone test dough that I created, with results that were very similar to the results that you achieved with the last two hydration bake tests you conducted on the purchased Sloan dough ball. If we assume that our results were valid, those results suggested that De Lorenzo/Sloan was using a relatively low hydration value. What we did not know is what other ingredients beyond flour and water were used to make the Sloan dough. I think it is safe to say that yeast in some form, and most likely salt, were also ingredients used to make the Sloan dough. Sugar and oil would have been logical candidates, but there was no evidence of such use. I concluded from some number crunching that I conducted at the time using the expanded dough calculating tool that something in large quantity was needed in order to make the total numbers work. I decided that oil was perhaps the missing link. So, my latest tests were calculated to see if a low hydration dough with a lot of oil will together create a dough with a good balance of elasticity and extensibility, and hopefully with little or no bubbling of the dough and skin formed therefrom.

Note: The dough (10.5 ounces) is for a single 14" skin; the corresponding thickness factor = 0.0683; the bowl residue compensation = 1.5%

As you will see from the above formulation, I selected a hydration value of 53%. The oil was a blend of 1% olive oil and 4% vegetable oil, for a total of 5%. I could have used all vegetable oil, which might be what De Lorenzo/Sloan uses, but I decided to mimic the blend that De Lorenzo/Robbinsville is said to use. That way, I could compare the performance of the Sloan clone dough with the results I have gotten with my De Lorenzo/Robbinsville clone test doughs. I used 0.40% IDY because I was after a one-day cold fermented dough. For my test, I used KABF as supplemented with vital wheat gluten to achieve a protein content of 12.9%, which is the protein content of the Pillsbury Best Bakers Patent Flour. Procedurally, I made the dough using the same methodology as described in Reply 745 at http://www.pizzamaking.com/forum/index.php/topic,25401.msg281529.html#msg281529. Again, that would allow me to compare the performance of the Sloan clone dough with the De Lorenzo clone test doughs. Since you used 10.5 ounces of the Sloan dough to make your pizza, I used the same dough ball weight. That meant that the thickness factor of my Sloan clone test dough was the same as yours, 0.0682.

As I expected, the latest Sloan clone test dough ball increased quite dramatically in volume over the next day (I started the dough at night). It more than doubled in volume. However, there were no fermentation bubbles in the storage container I used (my standard Pyrex glass bowl). I decided to use the Sloan clone test dough ball after 18 hours of cold fermentation. I let the dough temper at room temperature for about a half hour, at which point the feel of the dough suggested that it was ready to be used. I then opened up the dough ball to form a skin. I had no difficulties doing so, using the edge of my countertop and gravity to open up the skin until I could lift it and stretch it out to size. Before I was done, I was able to stretch the skin to over 20". I was able to hold the skin at the edges although I don't believe that I could have tossed the skin. There were some soft bubbles in the skin but they more or less disappeared as I let the skin rest on my countertop. I would say that the Sloan clone test dough performed as well as the De Lorenzo/Robbinsville clone test doughs with much higher hydration but with small amounts of oil.

What the above test demonstrates is that extensibility isn't solely a function of hydration. Oil used in large quantity can produce the same effect. Of course, the two factors combined (58% total in this case) are both implicated in the extensibility of the dough in which both water and oil are used. The other point I will make is that I could not have made the Sloan clone dough in my stand mixer if I did not use a lot of oil. It was knowing that that I decided to increase the amount of oil dramatically. It is also questionable whether I could have used my food processor to make a dough with low hydration and little or no oil. Even commercial mixers can struggle making low hydration dough (typically below an absorption rate of 50% or less), without oil, with caution being advised not to use anything beyond the first speed to mix and knead such doughs.

My pending Sloan clone test dough uses considerably less yeast and a slight reduction in the amount of oil. Everything else will remain the same. This test is intended to establish whether the small amount of yeast will result in a dough that is easy to open and stretch and is also free of all bubbling, including when opened to form a skin.

Of course, I have no way of knowing whether De Lorenzo/Sloan uses oil in its dough, or in what amount if they do indeed use oil in their dough. But we can safely say that the combination of low hydration and high oil will yield a skin that is nicely balanced between elasticity and extensibility.

Your post as quoted above sent me back to the drawing board. But, this time, it was in respect of the Sloan dough. And, in that vein, I made two Sloan clone test dough balls. The results are in for the first Sloan clone test dough, which I will discuss below, and the results for the second Sloan clone test dough are pending, with completion of that test dough expected tomorrow. However, the results go beyond just a Sloan dough. The implications go beyond that specific dough, as will become evident below.

To refresh your memory, you will recall that you conducted several hydration bake tests with the large Sloan dough ball that you purchased from De Lorenzo/Sloan when you and Trenton Bill visited that location and had one of their pizzas. You might also recall that I did a similar hydration bake test with a Sloan clone test dough that I created, with results that were very similar to the results that you achieved with the last two hydration bake tests you conducted on the purchased Sloan dough ball. If we assume that our results were valid, those results suggested that De Lorenzo/Sloan was using a relatively low hydration value. What we did not know is what other ingredients beyond flour and water were used to make the Sloan dough. I think it is safe to say that yeast in some form, and most likely salt, were also ingredients used to make the Sloan dough. Sugar and oil would have been logical candidates, but there was no evidence of such use. I concluded from some number crunching that I conducted at the time using the expanded dough calculating tool that something in large quantity was needed in order to make the total numbers work. I decided that oil was perhaps the missing link. So, my latest tests were calculated to see if a low hydration dough with a lot of oil will together create a dough with a good balance of elasticity and extensibility, and hopefully with little or no bubbling of the dough and skin formed therefrom.

Note: The dough (10.5 ounces) is for a single 14" skin; the corresponding thickness factor = 0.0683; the bowl residue compensation = 1.5%

As you will see from the above formulation, I selected a hydration value of 53%. The oil was a blend of 1% olive oil and 4% vegetable oil, for a total of 5%. I could have used all vegetable oil, which might be what De Lorenzo/Sloan uses, but I decided to mimic the blend that De Lorenzo/Robbinsville is said to use. That way, I could compare the performance of the Sloan clone dough with the results I have gotten with my De Lorenzo/Robbinsville clone test doughs. I used 0.40% IDY because I was after a one-day cold fermented dough. For my test, I used KABF as supplemented with vital wheat gluten to achieve a protein content of 12.9%, which is the protein content of the Pillsbury Best Bakers Patent Flour. Procedurally, I made the dough using the same methodology as described in Reply 745 at http://www.pizzamaking.com/forum/index.php/topic,25401.msg281529.html#msg281529. Again, that would allow me to compare the performance of the Sloan clone dough with the De Lorenzo clone test doughs. Since you used 10.5 ounces of the Sloan dough to make your pizza, I used the same dough ball weight. That meant that the thickness factor of my Sloan clone test dough was the same as yours, 0.0682.

As I expected, the latest Sloan clone test dough ball increased quite dramatically in volume over the next day (I started the dough at night). It more than doubled in volume. However, there were no fermentation bubbles in the storage container I used (my standard Pyrex glass bowl). I decided to use the Sloan clone test dough ball after 18 hours of cold fermentation. I let the dough temper at room temperature for about a half hour, at which point the feel of the dough suggested that it was ready to be used. I then opened up the dough ball to form a skin. I had no difficulties doing so, using the edge of my countertop and gravity to open up the skin until I could lift it and stretch it out to size. Before I was done, I was able to stretch the skin to over 20". I was able to hold the skin at the edges although I don't believe that I could have tossed the skin. There were some soft bubbles in the skin but they more or less disappeared as I let the skin rest on my countertop. I would say that the Sloan clone test dough performed as well as the De Lorenzo/Robbinsville clone test doughs with much higher hydration but with small amounts of oil.

What the above test demonstrates is that extensibility isn't solely a function of hydration. Oil used in large quantity can produce the same effect. Of course, the two factors combined (58% total in this case) are both implicated in the extensibility of the dough in which both water and oil are used. The other point I will make is that I could not have made the Sloan clone dough in my stand mixer if I did not use a lot of oil. It was knowing that that I decided to increase the amount of oil dramatically. It is also questionable whether I could have used my food processor to make a dough with low hydration and little or no oil. Even commercial mixers can struggle making low hydration dough (typically below an absorption rate of 50% or less), without oil, with caution being advised not to use anything beyond the first speed to mix and knead such doughs.

My pending Sloan clone test dough uses considerably less yeast and a slight reduction in the amount of oil. Everything else will remain the same. This test is intended to establish whether the small amount of yeast will result in a dough that is easy to open and stretch and is also free of all bubbling, including when opened to form a skin.

Of course, I have no way of knowing whether De Lorenzo/Sloan uses oil in its dough, or in what amount if they do indeed use oil in their dough. But we can safely say that the combination of low hydration and high oil will yield a skin that is nicely balanced between elasticity and extensibility.

Peter

Peter,

Lol about my post sending you back to the drawing board again. Sorry to do that to you, but thanks for making two Sloan test dough balls.

I recall I did several hydration bake tests with the large Sloan dough ball that I purchased at De Lorenzo/Sloan and you also did a similar hydration bake test with the Sloan clone test dough that you created. I understand if our tests were correct that they suggested that De Lorenzo/Sloan was using a relatively low hydration value.

Good to hear your low hydration with a higher oil value gave you such good results. Wow opening up a dough ball with a weight of 10.5 ounces to over 20” sure is interesting. Thanks for telling me that the test demonstrates that extensibility and elasticity isn't solely a function of hydration and oil in a large quantity can produce the same effect.

Your De Lorenzo's clone pizza looks very good. Your bottom crust looks excellent. What formulation did you use and what temperature did you bake at?

Norma

In preparing this dough, I thought about Norma's comment that the crust she made had too much crunch and was not as tender as a real De Lorenzo pizza. At about the same time, I was reading through another thread and saw pictures of the underside of a crust (pics 1 and 2) that looked more a De Lorenzo crust (pic 3) than what we were producing.

So I examined the formula that produced the pizza in pics 1 and 2 and found that it was very close to what we've been doing on this topic. (Norma, do those pictures look familiar? )

It turns out that a lot of the dough formulations we've been trying on this De Lorenzo thread are very similar to the formulation of the Papa Gino's clone, except that the Papa Gino's crusts are much larger: 16.24 oz for a 14" Papa Gino's compared with 10.66 oz. for the De Lorenzo's clone. (That is also equal to a TF of 0.1055 for Papa Gino's vs. 0.0682 for De Lorenzo.) The hydration of the De Lorenzo formulations have been a bit lower than the Papa Gino's as well.

But the crucial difference in my opinion between some of the De Lorenzo formulations we've tried and the Papa Gino's is the oil amount. Papa Gino's clone uses about 2% oil and we've been using 1% oil in a lot of the De Lorenzo clones. In my opinion, the increased oil amount is crucial for getting both the coloration that is present in the De Lorenzo pie and the crisp but tender characteristic this crust has. Interestingly, the Papa Gino's dough also uses cornmeal, but it is placed on the peel (and hence, bottom of the pizza) which De Lorenzo (Robinsville) doesn't do.

An example of the similarity between these formulations is seen in the following:

Taking the above into account, I decided to try nudging the De Lorenzo formula in the direction of the Papa Gino's while still trying to maintain the characteristics unique to De Lorenzo's. I tried the following:

My wife and I really liked the texture of this crust. It was crispy yet a little chewy and very strong with hardly any droop. I did this on the baking steel set 2 notches above the bottom rack (my usual position) with the oven pre-heated to 500 degrees F (calibrated to 535 degrees F). I didn't check the actual temperature but I have an IR gun and will check it next time.

One other technique that I picked up in Norma's video that I feel is very important: during the opening of the skin, the dough ball is first dipped in flour (both sides) and then as it is being stretched, additional flour (quite a bit) is tossed onto the dough as it's being pressed out. I think this flour application is important to achieve the even browning of the crust. This technique can be seen in this video at :48 seconds and at :58

In the video below, the flour is actually being rubbed into the dough ball just before it's about to be pressed out (at 2:33 in the video). This is what I did on my pizza and I think it helped to get better coloration.

I also feel I needed more sauce on the pizza I made and I agree it looks like De Lorenzo's actually uses quite a bit. I probably used about 4 oz and it needs to be at least 6 oz.

Yes, those photos do look familiar. Interesting that you think that a lot of the dough formulations we have been trying out are similar to the formulation of Papa Gino's clone. I have tried a Papa Gino's clone and didn't get that right. Each thing that is changed in a dough formulation changes something. Ovens, temperatures, mixing, amounts of IDY, hydration and so many other variables. I know I never will ever be able to figure all of that out.

Thanks for posting your formulation. I am glad your wife and you really like the texture of the crust using your formulation.

Well it was official yesterday morning that a stand very near me is going to be a seating area and also is going to have a ATM. That is good news to me because people that come to market are always trying to find a ATM. Right now the ATM is only in the main office and an ATM over at the office at the Flea and Antique market. I know my customers and other people that visit market will like the new seating area.

These are some random photos of the boardwalk style of tomato pies that were made yesterday when I had time to take a few photos. The boardwalk style of pizzas are gaining in sales as are the Detroit style of pizzas. I ran out of all dough balls yesterday about 6:30 PM, except for two dough balls that were ordered the day before for pizzas.

A couple that is retired from NYC comes to my pizza stand almost every week. The man is a retired city worker from NYC. The couple does live in our area now, but they go back to NYC often to see relatives. The couple says my boardwalk style pizzas are better than they can purchase in NYC. I appreciate a comment like that. The couple purchased 3 whole pizzas yesterday. I have been selling more whole pizzas lately.

One thing about Delorenzo's, Trenton-style pie and the crunchiness of the crust that has long been claimed (by writers and by the Amicos) is that putting the cheese on first, rather than the sauce enables the crust to stay crunchier and more rigid. Do you think that the cheese-first process does, in fact, enable a crispier crust for the final product?

And, does this "boardwalk" style usually put the cheese or sauce first? (Almost all the slice places I've ever seen have sauce first, but I am not familiar with this style, per se.)

That is one beautiful looking pie. Wish I lived closer to try a slice.

TomN

Tom,

Thanks for your kind comment. I wish you lived closer to me too so you could try a slice. I think you would find that the cheese I use it what makes my boardwalk style of tomato pies taste different. I also use a different sauce than most members use here on the forum. Most people would be surprised that I use a fair amount of Greek oregano in the sauce when I thin it at market. It is kinda weird that the oregano really can't be tasted after the pizzas are baked, but the Greek oregano compliments the whole taste of the pizza somehow. The dough formula is just a regular Lehmann formulation. Of course I have a deck oven that helps too.

One thing about Delorenzo's, Trenton-style pie and the crunchiness of the crust that has long been claimed (by writers and by the Amicos) is that putting the cheese on first, rather than the sauce enables the crust to stay crunchier and more rigid. Do you think that the cheese-first process does, in fact, enable a crispier crust for the final product?

And, does this "boardwalk" style usually put the cheese or sauce first? (Almost all the slice places I've ever seen have sauce first, but I am not familiar with this style, per se.)

Stuart,

I do think that putting the cheese on first helps make a crunchier pizza, but then the crust has to be baked right and has to be thin enough in my opinion. In my opinion it is much harder to make a De Lorenzo/Sloan/Robbinsville pizza than most kinds of pizza and get it perfectly right.

The boardwalk style of pizzas (Mack's, Manco & Manco and even Joey's in Trenton) do put the cheese on first. There are two applications of cheese too, but they are done before the pizza goes into the oven. The sauce is applied between the first application of the cheese and then second application of the cheese. There is a spiral application of the sauce in the pizzas mentioned above.

If anyone is interested I did email Vince Amico and asked him if the recipe for tomato pies he gave in his movie Pie Eyed are from one of the tomato pie businesses that are in the Pie Eyed video or if the recipe was one he made. Vince replied to me that the recipe he put in the Pie Eyed video is his recipe and not one of the tomato pie establishments he visited.

I think that there is a stronger connection between the Trenton tomato pies and the New Jersey boardwalk type of pie, such as made at Mack's, whose origins were reported to be out of Trenton.

Peter

Peter,Interesting that you think there is a stronger connection between the Trenton tomato pies and the New Jersey boardwalk pies. Thanks for the links.

I was wondering if you could please give a quick summary of your dough mixing method for the De Lorenzo clone. I looked at the previously quoted link but am still not entirely clear what you are doing. Are you still doing the 45 minute rest period after mixing and do you cover the dough during this time? Most of my dough has not been as extensible as I would have liked.

Note: The dough (10.5 ounces) is for a single 14" pizza; the corresponding thickness factor = 0.0682; bowl residue compensation = 1.5%; the dough preparation method is as described in Reply 745 at http://www.pizzamaking.com/forum/index.php/topic,25401.msg281529.html#msg281529; I used KABF with VWG to increase the protein content of the blend to 12.9%, which is the protein content of the Pillsbury Best Bakers Patent Flour, and I placed a thin layer of fine cornmeal in the dough storage container (a glass Pyrex bowl).

As you can see from the above formulation, I reduced the amount of yeast to slow down the fermentation process, and I lowered the total amount of oil (blend) by one percent. Everything else remained the same. The dough itself was left to cold ferment for 24 hours. Based on the spacing of the poppy seeds, the dough did not rise by much, about 20%. (It has cooled down considerably here where I live in Texas and my refrigerator compartment where I held the dough was quite empty.) So, I let the dough warm up at room temperature until the poppy seeds indicated a rise to about 67.5%. That took about 1 1/2 hours. I thought to let the dough warm up even longer but I wanted to see how it would behave at the 67.5% level. So, I opened up the dough ball using the edge of my countertop as aided by gravity. I had no trouble opening up the dough ball and stretching it to size (14"), and even beyond. The skin was robust but with a good balance between elasticity and extensibility. There were a few soft bubbles in the skin but they were hardly noticeable.

As with my last Sloan clone test dough, it seems that a combination of a fairly low hydration level (53%) with a fairly high quantity of oil (4-5%) also has the capability of producing a dough ball that can be easily opened and stretched pretty much in the same way as a dough ball with a higher hydration value (e.g., 55-58%) and a relatively small amount of oil (e.g., 1-2%). Both methods will produce a stretchable dough with a nice balance between elasticity and extensibility. And there will be essentially no bubbling of the dough during cold fermentation and little or no bubbling in the skins. What seems to largely dictate the extent of bubbling in the skins is the yeast quantity, along with the degree of fermentation as reflected by the amount of rise of the dough during fermentation. In this regard, small amounts of yeast seem conducive to little or no bubbling in the skin. Of course, we do not know whether the De Lorenzo/Sloan dough is subject to bubbling, but that does not seem to be the case with the Robbinsville skins as best we can tell from the photos and videos of their skins. An additional advantage of a low yeast level is that it increases the window of usability of the dough once it comes out of the refrigerator or cooler. The dough balls can sit on the counter or work area for some time without fear of their overfermenting.

As a side note, the total water content of the two Sloan clone test dough balls was around 40%. That is based on a flour which has a moisture basis of around 11-12%, which is typical of a flour by the time it reaches the consumer or after a period of storage at the consumer level. The 40% figure is also about what we derived from the hydration bake tests, using the same assumptions.

Interesting that you think there is a stronger connection between the Trenton tomato pies and the New Jersey boardwalk pies. Thanks for the links.

I was wondering if you could please give a quick summary of your dough mixing method for the De Lorenzo clone. I looked at the previously quoted link but am still not entirely clear what you are doing. Are you still doing the 45 minute rest period after mixing and do you cover the dough during this time? Most of my dough has not been as extensible as I would have liked.

Tim.

It is difficult to try to draw too many comparisons between a Mack dough and a De Lorenzo/Sloan or De Lorenzo/Robbinsville dough because we don't actually know their dough recipes. So, we are left only to try to compare clones of those doughs. That is not a terribly reliable approach although I think it is safe to say that the Mack's dough produced a thicker crust than what we believe to be the case with either of the De Lorenzo's doughs. That conclusion is based on weight data that Norma derived both from actual Mack's pizzas and our clones of those pizzas. In my opinion, it was because of the thicker Mack's skin that Norma was able to toss and spin the Mack's clone doughs. So, it is not only the hydration and/or the amount of oil that governs whether a dough can be tossed or not. Thickness factor is also implicated. The degree of fermentation is another such factor. There has to be the right balance between hydration, the amount of oil, the thickness factor, and the degree of fermentation in order to achieve the desired end results. The amount of yeast only becomes a factor when it is so large as to cause a dough to ferment too quickly or too much by the time it is to be used.

The dough preparation method I used is described in steps 1-9 that appear below the dough formulation set forth at Reply 745 at http://www.pizzamaking.com/forum/index.php/topic,25401.msg281529.html#msg281529. Using that method, I have been getting very good results recently as reflected by the relative ease of opening up the dough balls and getting a good balance between elasticity and extensibility. However, I have found that to get such results the combination of hydration value and the amount of oil has to be above about 56% (the range I have tested for the De Lorenzo clone doughs is about 56-59%). At values above about 56%, in my mixer all of the flour will be taken up by the dough ball using only the flat beater attachment. That time will be variable from one dough ball to another, but I just let the flat beater attachment do its job at speed 1 until all of the flour is taken up by the dough ball. Then I switch to the C-hook. I think the key to success is fully hydrating the flour and developing as good a gluten structure as the flour and the mixer will allow. As you will note, I have been leaving the dough ball uncovered during the 45-minute period. That is to simulate a rest period that De Lorenzo/Hudson purportedly used before doing the dough division. For my purpose with a single dough ball, it is good enough to either leave the dough ball uncovered in the mixer bowl or uncovered in my dough storage container. The one hour uncovered dough ball in the refrigerator simulates cross stacking. Covering the dough storage container with the lid simulates down stacking.

On the matter of oil quantity that you raised, I have been guided in my work by reports by knowledgeable members that De Lorenzo/Hudson/Robbinsville used only a small amount of oil. But words can be pesky things. Specifically, what is a small amount of oil? As I noted in Reply 587 at http://www.pizzamaking.com/forum/index.php/topic,25401.msg278420.html#msg278420, I considered 1% oil (or anything less for that matter) to be a small amount of oil and that I might have considered 2% oil to also be a small amount. Once we get to say, 3%, I start to scratch my head. That is on the cusp but, to me, it would be more than a small amount. But, maybe Sam Amico considers 3% oil to be small.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the type of oven and baking arrangement is a material component in the success factor. Norma has tried baking De Lorenzo clones in her deck oven at market, and she and Trenton Bill have baked De Lorenzo clones in their BlackStone ovens. And you used a baking steel. I recently commented that one of the De Lorenzo clone doughs I created was in search of an oven. It is far from clear that any De Lorenzo clone dough can be used successfully in any oven. The dough and the oven have to be matched. It's possible that the clone dough you used successfully would not produce the same results in a different oven or oven configuration. It's possible, but the only way to know is to to test the same clone dough in a different oven or oven configuration.

You are doing a very nice job with your De Lorenzo clones. And, better yet, you are able to explain what you are doing and the logic behind it.

Note: The dough (10.5 ounces) is for a single 14" pizza; the corresponding thickness factor = 0.0682; bowl residue compensation = 1.5%; the dough preparation method is as described in Reply 745 at http://www.pizzamaking.com/forum/index.php/topic,25401.msg281529.html#msg281529; I used KABF with VWG to increase the protein content of the blend to 12.9%, which is the protein content of the Pillsbury Best Bakers Patent Flour, and I placed a thin layer of fine cornmeal in the dough storage container (a glass Pyrex bowl).

As you can see from the above formulation, I reduced the amount of yeast to slow down the fermentation process, and I lowered the total amount of oil (blend) by one percent. Everything else remained the same. The dough itself was left to cold ferment for 24 hours. Based on the spacing of the poppy seeds, the dough did not rise by much, about 20%. (It has cooled down considerably here where I live in Texas and my refrigerator compartment where I held the dough was quite empty.) So, I let the dough warm up at room temperature until the poppy seeds indicated a rise to about 67.5%. That took about 1 1/2 hours. I thought to let the dough warm up even longer but I wanted to see how it would behave at the 67.5% level. So, I opened up the dough ball using the edge of my countertop as aided by gravity. I had no trouble opening up the dough ball and stretching it to size (14"), and even beyond. The skin was robust but with a good balance between elasticity and extensibility. There were a few soft bubbles in the skin but they were hardly noticeable.

As with my last Sloan clone test dough, it seems that a combination of a fairly low hydration level (53%) with a fairly high quantity of oil (4-5%) also has the capability of producing a dough ball that can be easily opened and stretched pretty much in the same way as a dough ball with a higher hydration value (e.g., 55-58%) and a relatively small amount of oil (e.g., 1-2%). Both methods will produce a stretchable dough with a nice balance between elasticity and extensibility. And there will be essentially no bubbling of the dough during cold fermentation and little or no bubbling in the skins. What seems to largely dictate the extent of bubbling in the skins is the yeast quantity, along with the degree of fermentation as reflected by the amount of rise of the dough during fermentation. In this regard, small amounts of yeast seem conducive to little or no bubbling in the skin. Of course, we do not know whether the De Lorenzo/Sloan dough is subject to bubbling, but that does not seem to be the case with the Robbinsville skins as best we can tell from the photos and videos of their skins. An additional advantage of a low yeast level is that it increases the window of usability of the dough once it comes out of the refrigerator or cooler. The dough balls can sit on the counter or work area for some time without fear of their overfermenting.

As a side note, the total water content of the two Sloan clone test dough balls was around 40%. That is based on a flour which has a moisture basis of around 11-12%, which is typical of a flour by the time it reaches the consumer or after a period of storage at the consumer level. The 40% figure is also about what we derived from the hydration bake tests, using the same assumptions.

Peter

Peter,

Great to hear the second Sloan dough ball was a success. I did note that you lowered the total amount of the oil blend and reduced the amount of yeast. Thank you for going into so much detail in your post.

Your side note about the total water content of the two Sloan clone test dough balls was around 40% is interesting and I guess I didn't recall that would have been based on a flour which has a moisture basis of around 11-12%. I really don't understand how the 40% figure is also the same as what we derived from the hydration bake tests.

Which one of your formulations for a Sloan dough would you recommend I try out in the Blackstone unit?

Your side note about the total water content of the two Sloan clone test dough balls was around 40% is interesting and I guess I didn't recall that would have been based on a flour which has a moisture basis of around 11-12%. I really don't understand how the 40% figure is also the same as what we derived from the hydration bake tests.

Norma,

As you will recall, the purpose of the hydration bake test is to determine how much water is in the sample of the dough subjected to the hydration bake test. In a basic dough recipe, the total water content of the dough comprises two parts: the water used in the recipe and the moisture content of the flour used in the recipe. The sum of the two numbers divided by the total dough ball weight represents the total water content of the sample. The moisture content of the flour will usually be a variable, but within a fairly narrow range. The moisture content is initially established at the miller's facility. It is typically around 14%. But by the time the flour moves through the transportation system and is stored in warehouses and eventually makes its way to the consumer or professional, its value might be as low as 11%. From that point on, the number might go up or down depending on humidity, age and other environmental factors.

When I did the calculation of the water content of the recent Sloan clone dough, I more or less arbitrarily used a moisture content of around 11% and the final calculation yielded the 40% number mentioned above. Had I used other ingredients in my Sloan clone formulation, such as sugar, or had I used different amounts of salt and yeast, the calculation would have yielded a somewhat different value. But, in general, with the hydration and oil values I used, the final number would have been in the range of about 38-40%. For comparison purposes, for the last De Lorenzo/Robbinsville clone dough formulation I posted (#10), the calculated water content of the sample would have been about 42.7-44.6%, principally because of its higher hydration value. To know if that number is anywhere near correct, we would have to have a sample of a real De Lorenzo/Robbinsville dough and subject it to a hydration bake test. You will recall that that is what you did with the Mellow Mushroom and Pepe's doughs. The Mellow Mushroom calculations were a bit more complicated because we had to also take into account the water content of the molasses, which varied depending on the type and brand of molasses used.

As for a Sloan clone dough formulation to test, I don't think that it would matter which of the two formulations you decide to use. I tried to test the outer limits by using a fair amount of yeast (0.40%) in one formulation and a small amount of yeast (0.18%) in the other, both for a one day cold fermentation. For your purposes, maybe something in the middle might be a good test. So, you might try the following formulation, also for a one day cold fermentation:

There is no way to predict whether the results using the above formulation will be like the results you got using the real Sloan dough, simply because we do not know much about the Sloan dough beyond the flour used.

As you will recall, the purpose of the hydration bake test is to determine how much water is in the sample of the dough subjected to the hydration bake test. In a basic dough recipe, the total water content of the dough comprises two parts: the water used in the recipe and the moisture content of the flour used in the recipe. The sum of the two numbers divided by the total dough ball weight represents the total water content of the sample. The moisture content of the flour will usually be a variable, but within a fairly narrow range. The moisture content is initially established at the miller's facility. It is typically around 14%. But by the time the flour moves through the transportation system and is stored in warehouses and eventually makes its way to the consumer or professional, its value might be as low as 11%. From that point on, the number might go up or down depending on humidity, age and other environmental factors.

When I did the calculation of the water content of the recent Sloan clone dough, I more or less arbitrarily used a moisture content of around 11% and the final calculation yielded the 40% number mentioned above. Had I used other ingredients in my Sloan clone formulation, such as sugar, or had I used different amounts of salt and yeast, the calculation would have yielded a somewhat different value. But, in general, with the hydration and oil values I used, the final number would have been in the range of about 38-40%. For comparison purposes, for the last De Lorenzo/Robbinsville clone dough formulation I posted (#10), the calculated water content of the sample would have been about 42.7-44.6%, principally because of its higher hydration value. To know if that number is anywhere near correct, we would have to have a sample of a real De Lorenzo/Robbinsville dough and subject it to a hydration bake test. You will recall that that is what you did with the Mellow Mushroom and Pepe's doughs. The Mellow Mushroom calculations were a bit more complicated because we had to also take into account the water content of the molasses, which varied depending on the type and brand of molasses used.

As for a Sloan clone dough formulation to test, I don't think that it would matter which of the two formulations you decide to use. I tried to test the outer limits by using a fair amount of yeast (0.40%) in one formulation and a small amount of yeast (0.18%) in the other, both for a one day cold fermentation. For your purposes, maybe something in the middle might be a good test. So, you might try the following formulation, also for a one day cold fermentation:

There is no way to predict whether the results using the above formulation will be like the results you got using the real Sloan dough, simply because we do not know much about the Sloan dough beyond the flour used.

Peter

Peter,

Yes, I recall the purpose of the hydration bake test is to determine how much water is in the sample of the dough subjected to the hydration bake test. What I don't think I understood before was about the variables of the flour moisture content. Thanks for explaining more.

I will try out your Sloan Clone Dough Formulaation #3 for this weekend.